On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:18:54AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > I hold it to be a "fix" because it was an embarassing oversight on my > > part. Without this, userspace support cannot be properly added. LVM2 > > developers raised their inability to put their metadata anywhere and I > > was like "oh shit". > > This is not oversight. > > It was originally planned that the dm-writecache target would use lvm > metadata just like the dm-cache target - if it were implemented this way, > no "offset" argument would be needed. But David Teigland who was given the > task to implement dm-writecache support in lvm refused to do it this way > and he insists that he must put some of his own metadata at the beginning > of the cache device before the superblock. > > So this patch is needed because of him. Mikulas, an offset would have been useful while I was experimenting with dm-writecache. I don't actually use or need the offset in lvm. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't care. Dave -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
